Today's Washington Post headline reads: "Army to End Expansive, Exclusive Halliburton Deal: Logistics Contract to Be Open for Bidding." Sounds great, eh? The Bush Administration forced to pull back in yet another area, "after several years of attacks from critics who saw the contract as a symbol of politically connected corporations profiteering on the war?" [Halliburton, of course, is Dick Cheney's former company. No coincidence there, nosiree Dick!]Well, don't get too excited quite yet. First of all, it turns out that "since 2002, the Army has paid Halliburton more than $14.5 billion to provide logistical support to U.S. troops." In other words, Halliburton's already made out like bandits on its sweetheart deal with the CheneyBushHalliburton Administration, making billions, in party by allegedly "charg[ing] $45 per case of soda, double-bill[ing] on meals and allow[ing] troops to bathe in contaminated water. Great, huh?
Making this news even LESS exciting is the fact that the decision to back off Halliburton "comes as the U.S. contribution to Iraq's reconstruction begins to wane, reducing opportunities for U.S. companies after nearly four years of massive payouts to the private sector." According to the Washington Post article, "Of the more than $18 billion Congress allocated for reconstruction in late 2003, more than two-thirds has been spent and more than 90 percent has been contractually obligated..." In other words, this is a case of (far) too little, (far) too late.
Too little, too late. Sort of like another Washington Post headline today, "U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions: Bowing to Justices, Administration Says It Will Apply Treaties to Terror Suspects." Yeah, tell that to the hundreds of suspects who have been held without trial, without charges without legal represtation, without a trial, and without the protections of the Geneva Convention for years now. I'm sure this will make them feel a whole lot better about the "waterboarding" and all.
Well. I don't blog; I columnize. But count me with the bloggers on this one. No great mystery enshrouds the challenge to Lieberman, nor is the campaign of his challenger, Ned Lamont, a jihad of crazed nit-pickers. Lieberman has simply and rightly been caught up in the fundamental dynamics of Politics 2006, in which Democrats are doing their damnedest to unseat all the president's enablers in this year's elections. As well, Lieberman's broader politics are at odds with those of his fellow Northeastern Democrats. He is not being opposed because he doesn't reflect the views of his Democratic constituents 100 percent of the time. He is being opposed because he leads causes many of them find repugnant.
Better late than never? These changes - these surprising attention to accountability and decency - are driven by November 2006.